The ACA marketplace has seen many disruptions since its implementation but in a sign of greater stability, major insurers are re-entering the marketplace or expanding their footprint. CHIR’s Megan Houston assesses the factors that are driving these insurers’ decisions, just as the ACA faces another challenge from the Supreme Court next month.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hear arguments in litigation over the future of the Affordable Care Act the week of July 8, 2019. If the plaintiffs prevail, millions could lose insurance coverage and millions more will lose preexisting condition protections. In their latest post for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette and Emily Curran document state-level efforts to preserve the ACA’s insurance market reforms.
On a chilly March Tuesday in Washington, DC, with the stroke of just 22 pens, health care as we know it in the United States was changed, and you were officially signed into law. For your ninth birthday, we want to give thanks for the gifts you’ve given us over the years.
Last month, the Board of New Mexico’s health insurance exchange voted to transition from HealthCare.gov to a state-based exchange. The state will undertake the task of building its own eligibility and enrollment platform with the hopes of launching a website in time for the 2021 plan year. This is the same exchange that, in 2015, called the federal platform HealthCare.gov the “safest, most risk-free way to proceed.” So, what changed? CHIR’s Rachel Schwab looks at the reasons behind the growing call to leave HealthCare.gov.
On August 2, a coalition of cities filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump and the Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that the administration has “intentionally and unconstitutionally” sabotaged the Affordable Care Act. The complaint alleges that the President has increased the cost of health coverage by discouraging enrollment, stoking uncertainty in the insurance markets, and reducing consumer choice. CHIR’s Emily Curran breaks down their complaint and evidence of alleged harm.
A handful of states are moving forward with plans to implement state-level individual health insurance mandates in light of Congress’s recent elimination of the federal mandate’s financial penalty. In their latest post for The Commonwealth Fund’s To the Point blog, CHIR experts Dania Palanker, Rachel Schwab and Justin Giovannelli analyze new sate individual mandate laws and highlight innovative models that were considered in states.
The Trump administration has released a new final rule to govern the Affordable Care Act’s individual and small-group markets, known as the 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters. The rule includes an expansion of states’ role over the ACA’s health plan benefit and affordability provisions. In her latest Expert Perspective for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health and Value Strategies Program, Sabrina Corlette untangles the rule and its implications for state decision-makers.
Last week Blue Cross of Idaho filed the first “state-based” health plans, products that don’t comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for coverage offered on the individual market. When a state can’t or won’t enforce federal law, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is supposed to step in. CHIR’s Rachel Schwab outlines HHS’ authority to protect the rule of law and ensure that Idaho consumers continue to receive the benefits they are promised under the ACA.
The Trump administration is expected to reverse federal limitations on short-term insurance, which does not have to comply with Affordable Care Act rules like preexisting condition protections. In their latest post for the Commonwealth Fund’s To the Point blog, CHIR’s Dania Palanker, Kevin Lucia, Sabrina Corlette, and Maanasa Kona examine how ten states currently regulate the short-term insurance market.
Idaho has just published rules for new, “state-based” health plans that are exempt from many of the Affordable Care Act protections for people with pre-existing conditions. CHIR’s Sabrina Corlette examines the legality of Idaho’s action, as well as its potential impact on consumers and the health insurance marketplace.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual blog post authors and do not represent the views of Georgetown University, the Center on Health Insurance Reforms, any organization that the author is affiliated with, or the opinions of any other author who publishes on this blog.
